Happy Friday everyone!
It’s been a bit of a crazy week over here so this is coming out a bit late. Last week we mostly dealt with some Motions from the Conservatives, details below!
Opposition Motion
Violent Crime and Repeat Offenders
Larry Brock (Conservative, Ontario, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations)
So last week we took a look at Larry’s Motion on violent crime. A vote has now been held on it and it failed with 139 voting in favour and 189 opposed.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 161 | 5 |
| Conservative | 139 | 0 | 5 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 22 | 0 |
| NDP | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Oil and Gas Emissions Cap
Andrew Scheer (Conservative, Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu’Appelle)
Andrew has a Motion regarding the oil and gas emissions caps:
That the House call on the Prime Minister to immediately repeal the oil and gas emissions cap, which in effect is a production cap.
Looks like what’s really up for debate here is pipelines and building more pipelines. Nobody was discussing the emissions cap, it all just immediately lead into arguments about pipelines.
Andrew’s Motion went up for vote and failed with 140 in support and 191 against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 162 | 3 |
| Conservative | 140 | 0 | 3 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 21 | 0 |
| NDP | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Protecting the Notwithstanding Clause
Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Bloc Québécois, Quebec, Rivière-du-Nord)
So bit of backstory for anyone not aware here, there’s currently a court case against Quebec’s Secularism Bill before the Supreme Court. This legislation prevents workers in provincially-regulated jobs in Quebec from wearing religious symbols at work. Knowing full well this would violate Charter Rights to freedom of religion, the provincial government pre-emptively used the Notwithstanding Clause to avoid any court challenges. The people challenging the Notwithstanding Clause’s use are asking for the Supreme Court to either restrict a government’s ability to pre-emptively use the Clause, or allow the courts to rule on whether or not legislation is a violation of Charter Rights even when the Clause is used.
The feds have stepped in to support restricting the Notwithstanding Clause. A big argument they’re making is that it allows governments to amend the Constitution, and that overuse of the Clause can result in us effectively not having the rights set out in the Charter. For example, if Quebec simply passes a set of legislation that bans religious symbols in any public spaces using the Notwithstanding Clause then we basically don’t have the right to freedom of religion. Another argument I’ve seen is that the Notwithstanding Clause is meant to be a temporary measure, but some of the uses of it can have long-term or permanent effects on the people it’s used against. An example here is denying access to gender affirming care for trans children. They will end up spending their entire lives living with the impact of that, which is somewhat longer than the 5 year lifespan of the Notwithstanding Clause.
Rhéal has an issue with the feds interfering with the case, and proposes:
That the House:
- call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court
- call on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec’s right to invoke the notwithstanding clause
- denounce the government’s willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces
The Motion went up for a vote and failed with 159 voting in support and 170 voting against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 162 | 5 |
| Conservative | 137 | 0 | 5 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| NDP | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Food Prices
John Barlow (Conservative, Alberta, Foothills)
John has a Motion to remove several “taxes” that he’s arguing are affecting food prices. The quotations are there because most of the stuff isn’t a tax, he’s just classifying it as such because it makes for a better sound bite and calling things a tax is a good way to get everyone angry about it. Here’s his Motion:
That, given that the Prime Minister said Canadians would judge him by the cost at the grocery store, and that,
- food inflation is 70% above the Bank of Canada’s target,
- food prices are up 40% since the Liberals took power,
- Daily Bread Food Bank expects 4 million visits to its food banks in 2025,
- food bank use in Canada is up by 142% since 2015,
the House call on the Liberal Prime Minister to stop taxing food by eliminating:
- the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment;
- the inflation tax (money-printing deficits);
- carbon tax two (the so-called clean fuel standard); and
- the food packaging tax (plastic ban and packaging requirements).
So yeah, not even going to look at the first part because as I said, he’s kind of stretching the definition of a “tax” in an attempt to get everyone using that word so public support turns against things like the plastic ban or the clean fuel standard.
No votes were held on this Motion last week.
Bill Updates
C-3 – An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
C-3 went up for its Second Reading vote and passed with 189 voting in favour and 138 voting against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 160 | 0 | 5 |
| Conservative | 0 | 138 | 5 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| NDP | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Green | 1 | 0 | 0 |
The Conservatives said a lot about how this legislation will “cheapen” citizenship and are promising to introduce a number of amendments in committee.
C-3 is now before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Discover more from Commons Sense
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.